335 
Am  33s 


AMER INGER 

SOCIALISM  FOR  THE 
FARMER  WHO  FARMS  THE 
FARM 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


4'-'  V,  1 

^ 

PWCE  |0c 

<V  • 


Socialism  For  The 
Farmer 


WHO  FARMS  THE  FARM 


'h;: 


4>  %$, 


; By  OSCAR  AMERINGER, 

^ Author  of  “SOCIALISM,  WHAT  IT  IS  AND 
HOW  TO  GET  IT,”  “LIFE  AND  DEEDS  OF 
? UNCLE  SAM;  A LITTLE  HISTORY  FOR 
BIG  CHILDREN' 

ss 


• - x 


, * , * • **  > X-  r -?■* 


:l?i 


Oscar 


■>“»'  a*  Mte , 


M'-  Amednget's  Italy  M'do  ,ppt,r  ,„  . 

ITT- » •*««  ***h  j 

!Tm  T V E“W  V.  Debs,  W.  S.  J 
most  brilliant  staff  of  writers  1 

m the  English-speaking  world  ^ *« 


•organ 


. 


« : 


■VdJJr tarfS'mT*’  “ 1904'  “d ■»< 

...  ft. 

»»ft.?w.*:TtrwL“  :rr  rWr  ,b™th  ^ 

« ..tafaion.,  IV  Bit”"'  W°"tin*  ’ 
ten  in  language  for  the  average  reader!  ’ 


**{ 


fourf 


INTRODUCTION. 


3 33 


7^ 


This  booklet  is  written  for  the  farmer  who  farms  the 
> farm.  That  is.  the  actual  tiller  of  the  soil.  The  man  who 
works  eight  hours  in  the  morning  and  eight  in  the  afternoon 
that  mankind  may  be  fed  and  clothed.  The  Socialist  move- 
ment is  not  concerned  with  the  farmer  who  farms  the  farmer. 
There  are  lawyers,  doctors,  bankers  and  merchants  who  own 
farms  Then  there  are  the  retired  farmers  who  moved  to  town 
to  die  and  then  forgot  why  they  moved  to  town.  All  these 
people  are  no  farmers  hut  exploiters  of  labor.  They  live  o 
the  farmer  who  farms  the  farm.  They  are  parasites  as  much 
as  our  idle  rich,  only  on  a smaller  scale. 

The  author  has  often  been  asked,  “After  a man  has 
worked  hard  all  his  life  and  saved  his  money  and  bought  a 
farm  to  have  something  to  live  on  in  his  old  age,  would  you 
Socialists  take  it  away  from  him?”  To  this  question  we 
. answer:  “If  that  farmer  had  received  the  full  product  of  his 

: labor  during  his  producing  years  he  could  retire  to  well-earned 
rest  on  the  accumulations  of  his  own  labor.  As  it  is,  he  lives 
on  the  fruit  of  some  one  else’s  labor.”  We  also  may  as  in 
return,  “If  a man  worked  hard  all  his  life  on  a rented  farm 
and  paid  one-third  or  one-half  of  the  crop  to  the  landlord 
what  are  you  going  to  do  with  him  after  he  becomes  too  old 

to  work?” 

We  may  add  further  that  we  don’t  expect  the  beneficial  ies 
• of  the  capitalist  system  to  voluntarily  relinquish  their  soft  snap. 

In  fact  they  would  be  very  foolish  in  doing  this,  especially  so 
. since  the  victims  of  the  system  are  still  willing  to  support  it 
- with  their  votes.  So  we  say  to  the  farmer  who  farms  the  far- 
. mer,  “personally  we  do  not  blame  you  for  exploiting  the  renter 
any  more  than  we  blame  the  chicken  for  eating  worms  or  the 
hawk  for  devouring  the  chickens.  As  long  as  the  landless 
who  even  now  are  in  the  over-whelming  majority  are  willing 
to  pay  you  for  the  use  of  God’s  earth,  you  would  be  a foo 
not  to  take  all  you  can.  Only  we  want  to  serve  notice  that 
' some  day  the  majority  will  wake  up  and  then  you  11  join  the 
% one  time  highly  respected  Robber  Barons  and  the  Feudal 

: Lords.” 


i 


Socialism  for  the  Farmer 


o„foTHE  SAD  STORY  OF  the  slamericans 

ica  it  l fT  3 6 th6re  Was  a great  island  named  Slamer 

left  ^ °D  the 

mericans  Th  . , ' inhabitants  called  themselves  Sla- 

not  1N°W  ‘l80  happened  ‘hat  the  Slamerican  food  raisers  could 
' , hen®ver  a food  raiser  wanted  clothing  to  cover  his 

:tz:;  w°oti  fetc!?  ppis  to  the  °wner  °f  the  bridge  apd 

tain 0l tlT  Wheel  ;ehold  °h0t’  L°rd  °f  Sp°ndulix  Cap' 
him  TheOC,t  , 1 ’ b h old  thy  servant  and  take  pity  upon 

of  mv  my  breeches  has  gone  to  naught  and  the  seam 

of  my  garment  has  frazzled  to  frazzles  Mv  tin 

through  the  sleeves  and  cry  for  covering  Might  LH 

porker  tbat  1 

the  plunks.”1”  PnCe  °f  PISS  iS  flVe  Dhlnks  t°-da>'’-  here  are 

pended  upon  the  children  of  my  own  bosom.  Five  plunks' 
oh!  my  eyes!  Five  plunk-have  mercy  upon  me!” 

plunkst  htfat  paw.  Sm°Ie  ” S"ile  ^ th«  Sl1™ 

While  the  food  raiser  thus  wailed  and  wept  a chillv 
tCgh  “*  crawled 


through  thP  hZZ  71  S n tne  n°rth  pole  and  crawled 
garment. ”Ve  P'UnkS-  ™ 


me  have  a 


3 


“Go  easy,”  replied  Ploot,  “I  am  not  in  business  for  the 
fun  of  it.  This  bridge  cost  oodles  of  spondulix.  Am  I not 
entitled  to  a reward  for  my  abstinence  for  not  having  eaten 
this  bridge?  Besides  the  land  on  which  these  pillars  rest  be- 
longs to  me  and  surely  I ought  to  have  some  rent  for  the  use 
of  it.  Then  too  I must  have  a little  profit  on  my  investment  in 
this  clothing  stock.  Therefore  go  hence  and  fetch  me  three 
more  pigs. 

“One  for  interest, 

“One  for  rent,  and, 

“One  for  profit.” 

The  food  raiser  departed  with  a sorely  puzzled  mind  to 
do  as  he  was  told. 

From  the  other  side  of  the  river  approached  a garment 
maker  with  a new  suit  of  clothes  slung  over  his  arm.  As  soon 
as  he  spied  the  'fat  man  on  the  bridge  he  cried,  “My  stomach 
is  as  empty  as  a summer  resort  in  January.  It  growls  until 
the  echoes  reverberate  on  the  walls.  Have  mercy  upon  me  and 
give  me  a porker  to  still  the  voice  in  my  innards.  O!  mighty 
Ploot,  take  this  garment  and  give  me  food.” 

Thereupon  the  Ploot  handed  to  the  garment  maker  five 
plunks  and  bade  him  to  return  and  fetch  three  more  garments. 
The  poor  worker  looked  flabbergasted  at  this,  but  Ploot  only 
said : 

“One  for  interest, 

“One  for  rent,  and 

“One  for  profit.” 

The  garment  man  was  too  hungry  to  argue  the  case,  so  he 
took  himself  hence  to  do  as  he  was  told. 

When  the  food  raiser  and  garment  worker  returned  next 
day,  the  one  with  three  pigs  and  the  other  with  three  suits  of 
clothes,  Ploot  gave  each  one  fifteen  shining  plunks.  Then  he 
sold  the  pig  to  the  hungry  tailor  for  twenty  plunks  and  the 
suit  of  clothing  to  the  shivering  food  raiser  for  the  same  sum. 

These  were  prosperous  times  'and  business  was  brisk. 
The  two  workers  had  earned  twenty  plunks  apiece.  One  de- 
parted with  a pig,  and  the  other  with  a new  suit.  Both  were 
happy  and  so  was  Ploot,  for  he  had  not  only  gotten  all  his 
money  back  but  three  suits  of  clothes  and  three  pigs  in  the 
bargain. 

All  the  Slamericans  went  through  the  same  transaction 
every  time  they  needed  food  and  clothing  and  so  it  happened 
that  Ploot  often  got  more  than  he  could  eat  or  wear.  At  such 
times  he  would  lock  the  gates  to  the  bridge  and  hang  out  a 
sign  saying,  “Closed  on  account  of  over  production.”  But  the 


4 


great  and  wise  ones  among  the  Slamericans  called  it  a panic 
and  explained  to  the  people  that  over  production  of 
food  was  the  prime  cause  of  starvation,  while  too  much  cloth- 
ing was  the  cause  of  the  nakedness  in  the  world. 

One  day  a crank  came  among  these  people  and  said, 
Let  us  build  a bridge  of  our  own  and  do  away  with  Ploot 
who  charges  us  interest  for  money  he  took  away  from  us,  who 
makes  us  pay  rent  for  land  which  the  Creator  made  for  all, 
and  who  demands  of  us  profit  for  being  in  our  way.  With  a 
bridge  of  our  own  we  can  exchange  pig  for  garment  and  gar- 
ment for  pig  instead  of  paying  four  pigs  for  one  garment  and 
four  garments  for  one  pig.”  When  Ploot  heard  this  he  called 
the  Slamericans  together  and  spake:  “Harken  unto  me.  This 
man  would  drive  capital  out  of  ,the  country.  Do  I not  give  you 
work?  By  allowing  you  to  make  four  suits  for  one  pig  and  to 
laise  four  pigs  for  one  suit,  do  I not  give  employment  to  you, 
your  wife  and  children?  If,  as  this  agitator  saith,  a pig  could 
be  swapped  for  a suit  and  a suit  for  a pig,  then  you  would  be 
out  of  work  three-fourths  of  the  time.  Does  not  the  holy  book 
say,  “in  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  thou  shalt  eat  bread?”  Who 
gives  you  an  opportunity  to  sweat?  It’s  me.  This  man  would 
rob  you  of  the  incentive  to  work.  He  would  destroy  the  Gods 
and  steal  your  wives.  Stone  him,  hang  him!” 

And  when  the  people  heard  Ploot  say  all  this  they  tied  a 
millstone  around  the  neck  of  the  crank  and  sunk  him  to  the 
bottom  of  the  river. 

TWO  MEN  SKINNED  ALIVE. 

Brother  farmer,  do  you  recognize  yourself  in  this  picture? 
Maybe  not,  but  the  capitalist  system  works,  and  works  you, 
exactly  like  it.  Only  it’s  more  complicated.  But  have  you  ever 
noticed  that  when  you  haul  wheat,  corn  or  cotton  to  town 
you  never  say  to  the  buyer,  “I  want  so  much.”  You  always  say, 
How  much  will  you  pay?”  And  when  you  buy  goods  in  the 
store,  you  don’t  say,  “I  give  so  much,”  but  you  inquire,  “How 
much  does  it  cost?”  You  do  not  set  the  price  of  the  things  you 
sell,  or  the  price  of  the  things  you  buy.  And  since  the  people 
to  whom  you  sell  and  from  whom  you  buy  are  in  the  business 
for  profit  they  pay  you  as  little  as  they  can  and  charge  you  as 
much  as  you  can  stand. 

Did  you  ever  take  a drove  of  hogs  to  town  and  then  eat 
store  cheese  and  crackers  for  dinner  because  you  did  not  feel 
that  you  could  afford  a pork  chop  in  the  “short  order”  res- 
taurant? 

Did  you  ever  escort  a carload  of  export  steers  to  Chicago 
and  then  eat  oxtail  soup  and  beef  tongue  in  the  cheapest  hash 


5 


joint  in  Packingtown  just  to  make  both  ends  “meat?” 

Did  you  ever  haul  a ton  of  sugar  beets  to  the  refinery  and 
your  wife  hauled  the  sugar  she  bought  with  the  six  dollars 
you  received  for  the  ton  of  15  per  cent  beets  home  under  the 
buggy  seat? 

Did  you  ever  sell  a barrel  of  apples  for  one  dollar  and 
then  throw  a double  decked  fit  when  the  “news  butch”  on  the 
“Cannon  Ball”  soaks  you  a nickel  apiece? 

Did  you  ever  sell  a heifer,  horn,  hoof,  hide  and  tallow  and 
all  and  then  buy  back  the  tanned  hide  for  more  money  than  you 
got  for  the  whole  beast? 

Most  likely  you  did  and  blamed  it  on  the  tariff,  or  the 
gold  standard  or  those  pesky  “Labor  union  fellers”  in  town 
who  do  nothing  but  strike  for  more  wages  and  who  make  the 
price  of  every  blamed  thing  go  clear  out  of  sight. 

But  you’re  wrong.  It’s  not  the  tariff  or  the  gold 
standard  or  the  Labor  Unions  that  cause  the  trouble. 
It’s  the  capitalist  system.  It’s  the  man  on  ,the  bridge  between 
you  and  the  city  laborer. 

That  fellow  pays  you  for  a basket  of  grapes  two  cents, 
while  the  worker  in  town  is  soaked  40  cents  for  the  same. 
That’s  an  increase  of  2000  per  cent.  Now  you  understand  why 
that  City  worker  howls  for  more  wages. 

The  buyers  pay  35  cents  for  potatoes  in  Waupacca,  Wis., 
and  the  people  of  Milwaukee,  only  a hundred  miles  away,  pay 
$1.50.  This  is  an  increase  of  300  per  cent  of  which  only  about 
30  per  cent  went  to  freight  and  handling. 

The  farmer  feeds  the  calf  until  it  has  grown  into  a cow. 
Then  he  feeds  the  cow,  milks  the  cow,  hauls  the  milk  to  the 
station  and  pays  the  freight  to  the  city.  For  all  this  he  gets 
four  cents  a quart.  While  the  milk  company  for  delivering 
the  milk  from  the  depot  to  the  consumer  gets  an  equal 
amount. 

Asparagus;  price  paid  to  the  farmer  8c;  cost  in  the 
city  35c;  an  increase  of  400  per  cent. 

Tomatoes  $2.00  for  a 24  pound  crate  or  8c  per  pound; 
cost  in  the  city  25c  per  pound;  advance  300  per  cent. 

Wheat,  for  which  the  farmer  received  one  dollar  per 
bushel,  when  converted  into  breakfast  cereal,  sells  for  15 
cents  per  pound  or  $9.00  per  bushel,  and  the  steer  for  which 
the  farmer  received  $55.00  on  the  hoof,  figured  on  the  basis 
of  prices  paid  in  swell  restaurants,  runs  up  to  about  $2000. 
That  is,  the  city  man  pays  as  much  for  the  steer  as  the  farm 
on  which  he  was  raised  is  mortgaged  for. 


6 


Yes,  brother  Farmer,  you  sell  cheap  enough  and  the  city 
man  pays  high  enough,  but  the  benefit  of  high  prices  for 
farm  products  in  the  city  go  not  to  you  and  the  low  cost  of 

c.ty  man  The  dT®  C°UntlT  °f  n°  earthly  beneflt  to 
city  man.  The  difference  is  swallowed  up  by  the  numerous  fat 

' consumer"6  Btand  betwe-  Producer  a* 

Since  t-he  farmer  bat  no  control  over  the  price  of  his 
products  his  income  is  determined  by  people  who  have  all 

rPrr in  the  woHd  *° see  hsm  - — wnh  :;i2 

WAGES  OF  THE  FARMERS 
Why  don’t  people  go  back  to  the  soil?  Why  do  thev 

backStolnth1VinS  'I  Crowded’  noisy  tenements  instead  of  going 
back  to  the  country  where  they  can  hear  the  song  at  the 

water?W  ’ ’“h*'6  G°d’S  fr6Sh  air  and  drlnk  fresh  spring 

_ „.Well1’  !here  is  nothinS  wrong  with  the  warble  of  the 

in  the  ci  Y Fresh  air  and  good  water  are  plentiful  enough 
in  the  country,  and  if  farmers  could  exchange  the  notes  of  the 

meadow  lark  with  the  notes  held  by  the  bankers  or  buy 
ultivators  and  manure  spreaders  with  hunks  of  fresh  air  or 

sw  f ia  0001  Sprins  Water’  life  in  the  country  would  be  one 

the  h a ?nS'  BUt  the  faCt  ‘S  tbe  farmer  hoIds  a monopoly  on 
the  hardest  way  of  making  a living  ever  invented  He  works 

longer  hours  than  the  city  worker  and  gets  less  pay  People 

ho  are  continually  harping  about  the  desirability  of  life  on 

Uncle  sL.may  d°  WeU  *°  StUdy  the  flSUreS  oomPiiod  by 
Farm  incomes. 

Under  $250.00  per  year  . o-,  Q ^ 

From  $250.00  to  $500  per  vear den* 

From  $500.00  to  $1000  per  vear Ill  £6r  Cen‘ 

From  $1000.00  to  $2500P  per^ar' .' ! .' ! ! .Ils  Z Zt 
Out  of  this  princely  income  the  farmer  pays  taxes,  in- 
terest, insurance,  pays  for  fertilizers,  machinery,  tools,  repairs 

fs  «onoo  oYaS!  °f  tte  17  PCT  C6nt  °f  farms  where  the  income 
is  $1000.00  and  over,  a goodly  amount  goes  in  wages  for  farm 

hands.  From  these  figures  it  may  easily  be  seen  that  the 
farmer  is  even  closer  to  the  minimum  of  subsistence  than  the 
wage  worker. 

Says  A.  M.  Simons  in  his  very  able  book,  “The  American 
armer:”  “When  it  comes  to  amount  of  income,  all  author- 
ities agree  that  the  farmers  and  the  wage  workers  are  alike 
in  receiving  little  more  than  a subsistence  wage.”  Prof.  C.  P. 
Walker  in  a discussion  before  the  American  Economic  Asso- 


: ciation  made  the  following  statement:  “By  using  all  available 
statistics,  it  becomes  evident  that,  deducting  rent  and  interest, 
the  American  farmer  receives  less  for  his  exertion  than  does 
the  laborer  in  factory  or  the  hired  man  on  the  farm.”  Prof. 
L.  B.  Bailey  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  in  Cornell 
University,  and  one  of  the  foremost  authorities  on  agriculture 
in  this  country,  declared  that  *the  “$200.00  a year  income 
farmer  is  the  ideal  in  American  farming.”  Geo*.  G.  Holmes, 
Assistant  Statistician  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture,  in  an  analysis  of  the  statistics  for  1891,  gives  as 
his  conclusion:  “It  appears  that  if  you  allow  interest  to  the 
farmers  on  the  farm  capital,  they  earn  substantially  no  wages. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  you  allow  them  no  interest,  they  receive 
$22.61  per  month  as  wages.” 

This  gives  a farmer  a chance  to  feel  either  as  a capitalist 
or  as  a wageworker.  As  a capitalist  he  gets  $22.61  per  month 
interest  on  his  investment  and  works  for  nothing;  while  as  a 
wage  worker  he  loses  the  interest  on  his  money  and  gets  $22.61 
per  month  wages.  So  we  see  that  as  far  as  incomes  »are  con- 
cerned wage  workers  and  farmers  find  themselves  in  the  same 
boat.  And  the  reason  that  neither  of  them  gets  much  more  or 
less  than  is  necessary  to  keep  themselves  in  working  condition 
and  to  raise  a new  crop  of  workers  is  that  neither  the  wage 
worker  or  the  farmer  own  the  implements  of  production.  The 
process  by  which  the  workers  become  separated  from  the 
means  of  production  will  be  explained  in  the  next  chapter. 
It  will  be  rather  dry  reading,  but  people  who  get  skinned 
ought  to  know  at  least  how  it  is  done.  Finding  out  the  reason 
why  after  all  is  not  nearly  as  painful  as  the  skinning  process 
itself. 

THE  DECAY  OF  PRIVATE  PROPERTY. 

Within  the  last  century  a great  change  has  taken  place 
in  the  relation  of  men  to  property.  A hundred  years  ago 
nearly  every  craftsman  owned  the  tools  with  which  he  worked. 
Production  was  carried  on  privately  and  the  private  ownership 
of  the  tool  insured  to  the  user  the  product  of  his  labor.  This 
relationship  although  just  from  the  viewpoint  of  distribution, 
because  it  gave  to  the  owner  the  product  of  his  toil,  was  in- 
ferior as  a means  of  production  to  the  system  which  replaced 
it. 

As  the  tool  was  merged  into  the  machine  and  the  machine 
into  the  great  factory,  there  evolved  a wonderful  organism, 
operated  by  many  laborers  working  together,  that  is,  co-opera- 
tively. But  while  we  developed  co-operative  or  social  produc- 
tion, we  still  retained  the  private  ownership  of  the  means  of 


8 


rh-:roheT::;rrLkTorr,d;not  c~  ^ « 

employment  in  the  factory  The  m»!l  **  Sh°P  and  accel 
by  one  man,,  or  at  least  bv „ l t ^ Can  be  owne 
operated  by  many  Thos^  Wh  ^ fGW  people’  but  must  b 

machinery  "an  “hose  t0ho  uWshe0it07o  Tt  ***'  *°  ^ 

about  the  senaration  w„  * d own  lt  Tbus  cam 
division  of  modern  socLn  -l  7*7^  ^ Iabor  aad  th 
on  the  one  side  and  workers  on  thTotC  Camps-capitaI-< 

The  instrum^nfoT'lah  **  hn°W  Carried  on  for  Private  profil 
The  product  of  the  ° ! eXploitati°» 

this  owner  is  a WAvirino-  Soes  to  its  owner,  bu 

dividend-chasing  capitalist”"11'  If  l0nger’  but  a couPon-clipping 
invested'  "rZ'T  °‘ 

r s 

series.  He  not  onlv  in«t  a Iong  and  complicated 

trade  itself  and  he  becomes' mT  a ^ trad®'  bUt  °ften  the 
owning  class.  6 and  more  dependent  on  the 

«^i:sr,r.ro rr^r:;-,riirsu“r’ 
rr,  ss?  -f ■ “ ■ 

amount  of  money  reouirc  i t 1 Product,  but  by  the 

The  dissolution  of  the  nt  u P h‘m  iP  W°rking  oondition . 

transformation  is  but  thA  hiVfu  • * * But  thls  Painful 

biSb  plane  t=  t=^r^d^nhi-  “ ‘ 

wbe^^stzfrtn the  - a -** 

THE  OLD  FARM. 

finoi  neip  and  the  women  prepared  it  for 

zzrszzsizrjxzz s.*™ 


9 

made  sugar,  packed  pork,  dried  beef,  wove  cloth  and  made 
clothing. 

What  little  furniture  and  implements  they  had  were 
usually  home  made.  The  blacksmith,  the  miller  and  the  shoe 
cobbler  were  about  the  only  artisans  called  upon  outside  the 
homeland  these  were  usually  paid  in  produce  instead  of  in 
money.  If  there  was  a house  to  be  erected  they  called  upon  the 
neighbors  for  help,  and  the  old  time  “log  raising”  was  re- 
garded in  the  light  of  a holiday.  Tobacco  was  raised,  cured 
and  smoked  by  the  men  folks  on  the  place.  Corn  was  easily 
transformed  into  whiskey  and  still  easier  consumed.  If  there 
was  a bigger  corn  crop  than  the  family  could  harvest,  a husk- 
ing bee  was  arranged,  followed  by  a dance  of  the  young  folks 
on  the  barn  floor. 

Grandfather  had  few  luxuries,  but  he  made  a living  and 
raised  a dozen  or  so  of  children.  He  was  economically  and 
politically  a free  man.  Being,  dependent  on  none  he  did  not 
care  a continental  who  knew  when  he  voted  for  “Tippecanoe 
and  Tyler  too.” 

The  cradle  of  American  democracy  stood  on  the  inde- 
pendent farm  of  the  first  half  of  the  last  century.  Free  soil 
and  freedom  cannot  be  separated,  economic  independence  and 
political  liberty  go  ever  hand  in  hand. 

The  invention  of  the  power  loom  made  hand  weaving 
unprofitable;  the  spinning  wheel  became  a plaything  for  the 
children  and  the  weaving  industry  moved  to  the  towns.  Soap 
factories  making  soap  that  floats  and  soap  that  sinks,  soon 
relegated  the  soap  kettle  to  the  scrap  pile.  The  oil  refinery 
put  an  end  to  the  candle  mould.  Armour  absorbed  the  meat 
packing  industry.  Havemeyer  assimilated  the  sugar  making- 
business.  The  whiskey  trust  manufactured  booze,  and  Duke, 
by  discovering  a process  which  makes  alfalfa  hay  smell  almost 
like  tobacco,  put  an  end  to  the  Dog  Leg  and  Granger  Twist 
industry  of  the  farmers. 

The  farmer  trade  too,  became  decomposed  and  specialized. 
One  industry  after  the  other  left  the  farm  until  the  farmer 
finds  himself  a specialist,  raising  a few  products,  not  for  home 
consumption  but  for  sale. 

THE  MODERN  FARM. 

As  soon  as  the  farmer  produced  for  sale  instead  of  for 
home  use,  his  independence  ceased  and  he  became  dependent 
upon  the  great  and  unknown  market.  Without  organization 
to  regulate  production,  with  no  knowledge  as  to  how  much  of 
his  products  the  market  demanded,  he  produced  blindly, 


10 


something  for  the'fruU  ^ hTs^oTk’  S°meb°dy  wouId  W hin' 

ganized  ‘"T”  d“U  Wlth  “n0r 

by  the  law  of  suddiv  ami  a , produc'ts  were  determined 

in  which  iarm.  products  areeTreparerLWhfienlthe 

became  trustified,  a small  and  powerful  cliauT  ofT""^011 

have  food  ^f~^  ablrte  ‘°  raiSe  Cr°PS  he 
income  fall  below  t’he  mnt  where  he'  “Tk  Sh°Uld  WS 
these  necessities,  he  must  cease  to  produce  8?”  aCQUire 
the  farmers  completely  the  trusts  would  kill  f7  PaupeminS 

de?  b6  Sa"  tba‘ - 

ate- . wksk 

No  c H°H„  ™E  FABMEB  IS  SKINNED, 
sumer  ? Pr°duced  until  B has  reached  the  con- 

11.  bu,  “S  “™  “*'““»*•  ««  1. 

it  *0^™^  farmer  iS  b°th  Pr°ducer  and  consumer  he  gets 

Era  r Sr-  ~ a a 

sSSHS 

the  pork  industry  gives  to  the  owners  of  the  hog  a pr'e  that 


11 


will  feed  and  clothe  the  hog  raiser  while  he  raises  the  hog. 
Time  has  been  when  the  price  of  hogs  was  set  too  low  by  the 
meat  trust,  then  the  half  starved  hog  raisers  quit  raising  hogs 
and  the  price  had  to  be  raised  again  to  induce  the  farmers  to 
return  to  the  hog  industry.  Prices  rise  and  prices  fall,  but  on 
an  average  the  farmer  gets  a bare  living  while  the  hog  and 
pork  manufacturers  grow  fat. 

THE  CATTLEMAN. 

Tradition  tells  us  that  the  cow  man  is  the  free  born  son 
of  the  boundless  plain.  A hale  fellow  well  met,  a happy-go- 
lucky  kind  of  a chap.  Independent — should  say  so;  free 
man — no  word  for  it. 

Now  let  us  see  how  things  stand  with  the  cow  man.  A 
steer  has  no  value  as  long  as  it  is  a steer.  Cattle  raised  in 
Texas  are  converted  into  beef  in  Kansas  City  or  Chicago,  and 
consumed  as  porterhouse  or  soup  meat  in  New  York,  Berlin 
or  Paris, 

The  ranch  and  the  steer  belong  to  the  cattleman.  To 
finish  a steer  for  the  market  requires  corn,  and  corn  costs 
money.  Like  most  farmers,  the  cow  man  is  usually  long  on 
expectation  and  short  on  coin.  So  he  borrows  the  money  from 
the  commission  house  at  a more  or  less  unreasonable  rate  of 
interest.  To  secure  the  commission  house  he  mortgages  the 
steers  and  agrees  to  deliver  them  at  the  stock  yards  any  time 
the  commission  house  may  request  it.  He  cannot  take  advan- 
tage, if  there  is  such  a thing,  of  a favorable  market,  but  must 
deliver  when  told  to. 

But  let  us  assume  that  our  free-born  cattleman  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  commission  house.  He  takes  his  cattle  to  the 
Kansas  City  Stockyards.  This  institution  is  controlled  by  the 
meat  trust.  Every  morning  the  different  firms  composing  this 
organization  agree  on  the  maximum  price  of  cattle.  Let  us  say 
this  price  is  five  cents  per  pound.  There  is  still  competition  in 
the  stock  yard;  every  buyer  tries  to  buy  steers  for  less  than 
five  cents.  It  is  a kind  of  Dutch  auction,  where  the  buyers 
beat  the  price  down  instead  of  up. 

If  your  cattleman  does  not  want  to  accept  the  top  notch 
price  of  five  cents,  he  may  keep  his  steer  in  the  stock  yards 
by  paying  certain  reasonable  charges.  He  also  may  purchase 
feed  for  his  animals  at  a figure  usually  charged  the  two-legged 
cattle  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  or  the  St.  Regis.  In  a short 
time  the  cattle  eat  their  heads  off.  Our  freeborn  son  of  the 
prairie  may  have  to  sell  them  for  less  than  he  was  offered  in 
the  first  place  and  pay  the  board  bill  besides. 


12 


If  he  refuses  to  sell  at  live  cents  per  pound  in  Kansas 
City,  he  may  reload  his  stock  and  ship  it  to  the  Chicago  Stock 
Yards,  belonging  to  the  same  trust,  and  sell  them  for  a nickle 
per  pound.  By  the  time  he  has  deducted  feed  bills  and  addi- 1 
tional  transportation  charges,  he  can  he  glad  that  his  cattle 
pass  entitles  him  to  a return  trip  home. 

The  cattle  man  is  only  the  owner  of  the  first  few  links  in 
the  chain  of  production.  The  ownership  of  land  and  cattle 
does  not  prevent  his  exploitation  by  the  Armours,  Swifts  and 
Sulzbergers,  who  own  the  packing  houses  and  the  market 
facilities.  On  his  way  to  the  consumer  he  finds  his  road 
blocked  by  the  Capitalist  owner  of  the  greater  means  of  pro- 
duction, who  says,  “Stand  and  deliver.” 

Sometimes  cattle  are  high  and  sometimes  low.  Some 
cattlemen  make  money,  others  go  into  bankruptcy.  But  on  an 
average  the  cow  man  receives  enough  for  his  stock  to  keep  him 
alive  and  in  working  condition  to  raise  more  steers  for  the 
meat  trust. 

PICKING  THE  COTTON  PICKER. 

King  Cotton,  Queen  Poverty,  Prime  Minister  Hunger  and 
Court  Chaplain  Ignorance  rule  the  cotton  states. 

Cotton  is  the  devil’s  own  crop.  It  takes  thirteen  months 
out  of  the  twelve  and  all  the  children  out  of  school  to  raise  a 
cotton  crop. 

Raw  cotton  on  the  farm  has  no  more  value  than  ice  on 
the  North  Pole.  To  prepare  cotton  for  the  consumer  it  must 
go  through 

THE  GIN, 

THE  COMPRESS, 
over 

THE  RAILROAD, 
through 

THE  COTTON  MILL 
THE  CLOTHING  FACTORY 
and 

THE  STORE. 

The  cotton  raiser  may  be  the  proud  owner  of  land,  mules, 
implements,  cotton  bags,  and  children,  but  the  cotton  gin,  the 
compress,  the  railroad,  the  cotton  mill,  the  clothing  factory 
and  the  store  belong  to  Mr.  Capitalist,  and  this  gentleman  sets 
the  price  of  cotton  and  regulates  the  price  of  clothing.  The 
result  is  that  the  cotton  raiser’s  family,  who  produce  enough 
cotton  in  one  season  to  clothe  themselves  for  a life  time,  are 
forced  to  dress  in  rags  and  shoddy.  In  a pinch  the  hog  raiser 
may  eat  his  own  hog.  The  wheat  farmer  can  take  his  wheat 


13 


to  the  flour  mill  and  have  it  ground,  and  if  his  wife  hasn’t 
forgotten  how  to  bake,  he  may  eat  the  bread.  But  raw  cotton, 
cannot  be  worn,  eaten,  or  used  as  fuel;  therefore  no  other  class 
of  farmers  are  more  dependent  upon  the  capitalist  class  than 
the  cotton  raiser. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  cotton  raisers  suffer  greatly  from 
the  hook  worm,  but  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  even  a hook  worm 
can  make  a living  out  of  the  cotton  raiser  after  the  capitalists 
get  through  with  him. 

Suppose  you  own  a fiddle  and  I own  the  bow.  How  much 
music  will  you  make?  Suppose  you  own  the  well  and  I own 
the  pump.  How  much  water  can  you  get?  Even  a free 
owned  farm  with  all  its  implements,  animals  and  machines 
form  only  the  first  link  in  a long  chain  of  production.  Those 
who  own  the  other  links  between  the  farmer  and  the  con- 
sumer determine  the  wages  and  the  mode  of  living  of  the  far- 
mer as  effectively  as  the  owner  of  the  factory  determines  the 
wages  of  his  employes. 

But  not  all  the  farmers  own  even  the  first  link  of  this 
chain.  The  farm  land  itself  is  gradually  slipping  away  from 
the  farmer.  It  may  be  well  for  some  people  to  po,int  to  the 
automobiles  and  carriages  as  sure  signs  of  prosperity  among 
the  farmers,  but  as  long  as  it  can  be  shown  that  the  farmer  is 
losing  the  very  foundation  on  which  he  rests;  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  mother  earth  itself  is  becoming  capitalist  property 
— that  is,  a means  of  exploitation — then  all  this  prosperity 
talk  is  idle  wind.  A farmer  without  land  is  a good  deal  like 
a fish  without  water,  and  so  it  may  be  well  to  give  a little 
study  to  the  land  question. 

THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

The  private  ownership  of  land  has  been  condemned  by 
every  thinker  and  prophet  from  Moses  to  Herbert  Spencer, 
Karl  Marx  and  Henry  George.  Even  God  has  declared  himself 
in  favor  of  the  common  ownership  of  land  when  he  said: 
“You  are  strangers  and  sojourners  on  this  earth.  And  the 
land  shall  not  be  sold  forever,  for  the  land  is  mine.”  For 
many  centuries  the  Jews  heeded  the  divine  injunction  and 
divided  the  land  every  fiftieth  year  among  the  children  of 
Israel.  But  in  the  course  of  time  real  estate  agents  and  land 
boomers  settled  among  them.  The  common  land  of  God’s 
children  became  the  private  property  of  the  few,  and  the  many 
found  themselves  landless.  Thereupon  God  waxed  wroth,  as 
they  used  to  say  when  a person  got  huffy,  and  he  said  to  his 
chosen  people,  “Woe  unto  you,  for  you  have  built  house  on 


14 


HH§iiPpH 

THE  STORY  OF  MR.  ANANIAS 

- '£=  ~ a ss 

were  a queer  set,  and  nothing  like  them  has  ever  been  seen 

iaoSguDmnohnStend0m'  ^ the  firSt  PlaCe’  they  beIie™d  m divid- 

Of  clothing  “Weeh  M aS  advoc'ating  the  common  ownership 
t clothing  We  hold  everything  in  common  except  our  wives  ” 

comnTn  tab/116^’  A‘  Ume  they  assembled  around  the 
ifTbe  f n b v,  ery°ne  brousht  aI>  be  had  to  the  table  and 

a kfct  T0WsT°k1Chednhe  l6aSt  ea‘  th6  m°st  “ one  raised 
* ; Tkls  looked  mighty  good  to  Mr.  Ananias  and  he  de- 
cided  to  get  m on  the  ground  floor. 

Now,  the  by-laws  of  the  organization  stipulated  that 
those  who  had  land  must  sell  it  and  bring  the  proceeds  thereof 
o the  common  table.  Well,  this  Ananias  man  owned  a good 
farm  in  Palestme  County,  and  he  sold  it.  But  when  it  came 

‘no  / “°ney  t0  hiS  Cbristian  brothers  he  hedged 
No  one  knows  how  much  I got  for  my  farm  except  the  man 

to  himseff  So  heV  l°  keep  mum’”  said  A»anias 

himself.  So  he  knocked  down  some  of  the  money 

But  it  appears  that  St.  Peter,  the  chairman  of  the  meet- 
ing, smelled  a rat,  and  he  spake  unto  the  new  convert  thusly 
nanias,  is  this  all  the  boodle  thou  got  for  thy  farm’” 

"Sure  npeten”niThl00ked  P6‘er  SQUare  in  the  eyes-  and  said, 
°ure,  Pete.  Thereupon  God  smote  him  dead  and  some 

the ‘out side. WS  WraPP6d  “ a blanket  and  dumbed  bim 

And  Ibhr  th6y  CaI'ed  iD  Ml'S'  Ananias  and  cross-examined  her 
nd  she  swore  up  and  down  that  the  money  on  the  table  was 


15 


all  they  got  for  the  farm.  But  all  this  time  she  had  a wad 
stuck  away  down  in  her  stocking,  where  no  one  could  see  it. 
But  the  Lord  saw  it,  and  he  smote  her  dead  also.  This  is 
what  happened  to  Christians  who  refused  to  divide  up  when 
Christianity  was  still  in  working  order. 

Nowadays  the  preachers  explain  that  Ananias  and  his  old 
I lady  were  killed  because  they  lied  and  not  because  they  refused 
to  divide  their  land.  But  anybody  with  a grain  of  sense 
! ought  to  know  that  if  folks  got  killed  for  lying  in  business 
only  deaf  and  dumb  people  would  populate  this  world. 

Yes,  the  private  ownership  of  land  is  wrong  from  the 
religious  standpoint,  but  if  people  who  claim  to  be  saved 
don’t  care  a rap  for  what  God  says,  then  what’s  the  use  for  an 
ordinary  mortal  like  myself  to  spring  the  religious  argument 
against  the  private  ownership  of  land?  It  wouldn’t  cause  the 
most  pious  land  owner  on  earth  to  part  with  enough  soil  to 
make  a mud  pie. 

Land  is  the  storehouse  of  nature,  from  which  mankind 
draws  the  material  to  sustain  life.  Those  who  hold  the  key  to 
this  storehouse  also  hold  in  their  hands  the  life  of  those  who 
, cannot  enter  without  their  permission. 

Labor  applied  to  land  creates  wealth;  but  those  who  are 
denied  access  to  the  soil  can  only  create  wealth  by  working  for 
the  owner  of  the  land. 

Land  is  the  free  gift  of  nature  to  all  her  children.  If  there 
such  a thing  as  natural  right,  the  right  to  the  use  of  the  land 
should  be  foremost.  ' But  in  this  world  of  strife  and  strug- 
gle there  is  no  such  a thing  as  natural  right.  “Might  is  right,”* 
and  for  thousands  of  years  the  mighty  have  possessed  them- 
selves of  the  land  and  used  it  to  oppress  and  enslave  the  weak. 
Even  a religion  which  proclaims  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  Brotherhood  of  Men  failed  to  prevent  a division  of  “God’s 
Children”  into  lords  and  serfs,  landlords  and  tenants. 

As  long  as  our  population  was  small  and  land  practi- 
cally unlimited  landlordism  could  not  develop,  for  no  man 
will  voluntarily  work  for  another  for  less  than  he  can  get  by 
working  for  himself.  But  in  the  course  of  time  the  country 
became  more  densely  populated.  A capitalist  government, 
with  an  eye  for  the  interest  of  the  class  it  served,  presented 
whole  empires  to  railroad  companies.  Up  to  1896  our  benevo- 
lent, paternalistic  government  gave  266,000,000  acres  of  -land 
to  the  railroad  promoters.  The  Northern  Pacific  alone  received 
a grant  of  forty-eight  million  acres. 

Most  of  these  grants  were  obtained  through  fraud, 
bribery  and  the  corruption  of  the  representatives  of  the  people. 


16 


Court  Judges  down  to  State 


from  Presidents  and  Supreme 
Governors  and  Assemblymen. 

It  seems  that  the  sole  purpose  of  all  land  legislation  dur- 
ing the  last  three  quarters  of  a century  was  to  encourage  land- 
lordism and  land  speculation  and  to  rob  the  farming  popula- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  gigantic  corporations.  Uncle  Sam 
squandered  natural  resources  like  a drunken  sailor;  or,  better 

he  robbed  his  nephews  and  nieces  like  an  unscrupulous  guar- 
dian to  enrich  a few  of  his  pets.  S 


All  through  the  northwest  we  find -the  railroad  corpora- 
tions selling  the  land,  which  Uncle  Sam  was  kind  enough  to 
give  them  for  nothing,  to  subsidiary  lumber  companies  and 
with  the  proceeds  thereof  built  the  roads. 


These  lumber  companies  barely  paid  more  than  a few 
dollars  per  acre  for  the  finest  timber  land  in  the  world  but  the 
price  more  than  paid  for.  the  building  of  the  roads.  In  due  time 
the  majestic  forest  was  converted  info  lumber.  The  cut  and 
burned-over  land,  with  nothing  left  on  it  but  the  blackened 
stumps,  was  sold  to  settlers  for  from  ten  to  fifteen  dollars  per 
acre.  In  this  ingenious  way  the  farmer  was  made  to  pay  for 
the  building  of  roads  which  were  to  rob  him  ever  after.  Inci- 
dentally he  also  helped  the  struggling  lumber  trust  to  bear 
the  heavy  expense  entailed  in  the  devastation  of  our  forests. 


Even  when  the  government  gave  the  land  direct  to  the  set- 
tlers under  the  homestead  acts  it  was  more  from  a desire  to 
furnish  freight  and  passenger  traffic  for  the  subsidized  roads 
than  to  help  the  farmer  to  land. 

To-day  our  public  domain  is  a thing  of  the  past,  and  what 
little  land  there  is  still  open  for  homesteading  is  too  poor  to 
raise  a fuss  on  with  two  Irishmen  and  a gallon  of  whisky. 

Where  other  enlightened  people  have  steadily  striven 
towards  the  abolition  of  land  monopoly,  our  own  government 
made  it  easy  to  monopolize  the  soil.  There  is  absolutely  no  limit 
as  to  how  much  of  God’s  earth  an  individual  may  hog  in  the 
land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave.  Even  foreign  land- 
lords have  been  encouraged  to  take  as  much  of  the  pie  as 
desired. 


Here,  for  instance,  are  a few  English  beneficiaries  of 
Uncle  Sam’s  generosity: 


Earl  of  Cleveland  106,650  acres 

Duke  of  Devonshire 148,625  acres 

Duke  of  Northumberland 191,460  acres 

Byron  H.  Evans  700,000  acres 

Duke  of  Sutherland  422,-000  acres 

Robert  Tenant  530,000  acres 


. 17 


W.  Whaley,  M.  P 
Mr.  Ellerhousen 
Baron  Tweedale 


310.000  acres 

600.000  acres 

1,700,000  acres 


In  1896  six  foreign  land  companies  owned  twenty-six  mil- 
lion acres  of  this  country,  or  enough  to  give  140,000  home- 
steads of  160  acres  each.  Cutting  the  homesteads  down  to 
eighty  acres  each,  this  land  would  support  a farming  popula- 
tion of  1,400,000  souls. 

SQme  patriotic  souls  are  bitterly  opposed  to  alien  owner- 
ship of  land,  but,  to  save  my  soul,  I cannot  see  what  difference 
j it  makes  whether  the  rack-rent-ridden  tenant  pays  his  sweat- 
stained  sheckels  to  the  agent  of  my  Lord  Tweedledeedle  in  St. 
Louis  or  to  Lawyer  Skinnem  at  the  nearest  county  seat. 

If  a boy  puts  a tack  on  my  chair  and  I sit  on  it,  I am  not 
going  to  lick  the  boy  because  he  is  Dutch  or  Irish,  but  because 
he  put  the  tack  under  me.  It  is  not  the  nationality  of  the  boy 
that  hurts,  but  the  tack,  and  so  it  is  with  landlordism. 

The  native  land  hog  has  been  not  less  enterprising  than 
the  foreign  breed,  and  it  seems  that  our  homemade  trusts  have 
dabbled  considerably  in  the  real  estate  business  on  the  side. 
Here  are  a few  trust  landlords: 

Lumber  Trust 30,000,000  acres 

Standard  Oil 1,000,000  acres 

Leather  Trust 500,000  acres 

Steel  Trust,  value $60,000,000 

Then  there  a number  of  thrifty  and  frugal  individuals, 
who  worked  hard  and  saved  still  harder,  until  they  acquired 
farms  of  such  goodly  proportions  as  that  one  of  the  late  D.  C. 
Murphy  of  New  York,  who  left  4,000,000  acres  of  land  be- 
hind; former  United  States  Senator  Farwell  of  Illinois,  who 
owned  3,000,000;  and  Henry  Miller  of  California,  who  to-day 
is  the  undisputed  lord  over  22,500  square  miles. 

Yes,  this  is  the  richest  country  on  earth,  and  there  is 
enough  land  for  ten  times  the  population  we  have,  but  it  hap- 
pens to  belong  to  the  fellow  who  farms  the  farmer  instead  of 
the  farmer  who  farms  the  farm.  There  is  plenty  of  air  for 
everybody  and  some  to  spare,  but  if  air  could  be  bottled,  frozen, 
packed  or  monopolized,  some  captain  of  industry  would  choke 
little  meters  down  our  throats  and  make  us  cough  up  a quar- 
ter for  a day’s  breathing.  And  he  should  not  be  blamed  for  it, 
either,  because  it  is  our  duty  to  encourage  brain,  ability, 
foresightedness,  enterprise  and  sagacity.  Besides,  a people 
who  are  willing  to  pay  others  for  the  use  of  God’s  earth  should 
have  no  objection  to  putting  up  good  money  for  God’s  air  also. 


18 


Yes  but  the^isTn  ,"bUt  th6Se  Pe°Ple  °Wn  to°  much  land." 

r r srr  % 

ten  hundreds,  thousands  or  unions  of  peopfe^  B^idt  ^ 

the  great  trusts  own  considerable  land,  the ^LmutET 
sashed  in  getti  the , farm  product  wiihout  0“^  ta™ 

towns  w^i:^:hr;:^apitaiists  in  the  «*»*  «* 

WHY  THE  FARMERS  LOSE  THE  SOIL 

a hope  that  some"  daT  thT  ^ * 

z rsinss  ot  fa™  - * 

s55S3£=~s=5 

=pH~ss:ss= 

Worths  "C  “ Way:  The  Same  Kansas  farm 

Worth  $ 1 J“  HI,’  prof ced  2°00  bu.  of  corn,  value  $1000 
Worth  $ 5*000  in  loon*  Pr°duCed  2000  bu-  of  corn,  value  $1000 
Worth  x ' in  , n’  ^ 2°°°  bU'  °f  Corn-  value  $1000 

to  $^;rr—  ! 

SHSr- 

rn  m 1880  will  not  produce  2000 


19 


kushels  of  corn  in  1910  unless  a greater  amount  of  labor  is 
“ expended,  for  while  land  values  have  steadily  gone  up,  the 
tj: productivity  of  the  soil  has  gone  down.  As  long  as  this  farmer 
works  his  own  land  it  is  immaterial  to  him  whether  the  land 
i is  worth  ten  cents  or  ten  thousand  dollars. 

Yes,  you  see  that;  but  you  say:  “This  farmer  bought  his 
i farm  for  $100.00  in  1880;  to-day  he  can  sell  it  for  $10,000.00 
land  make  a clear  profit  of  $9,900.00.”  Admitted,  but  some- 
'body  must  have  $10,000.00  before  our  farmer  can  get  it.  Let 
> us  say  our  farmer’s  name  is  Tom  and  the  other  fellow’s  name 
is  Dick. 

i Tom  has A farm 

Dick  has ..$10,000.00 

Now  the  two  swap,  and  let’s  see  what  happened, 
j Nothing  happened;  not  a cent  of  value  was  created.  In- 
! stead  of  Dick  eating  up  his  $10,000.00  in  town,  Tom  is  mov- 
ing to  town  to  do  the  spending  and  Dick  moves  on  the  farm. 
The  two  change  positions — that  is  all.  If  this  changing  of  land 
and  money  has  benefited  Tom  and  Dick,  then  figure  it  out  for 
me;  and  if  the  swapping  between  Tom  and  Dick  did  not  make 
the  two  any  richer  than  they  were  before  the  swap,  how  on 
|l  earth  is  the  swapping  of  all  the  Toms  and  Dicks  in  the  country 
j|  going  to  benefit  the  farming  class? 

If  I own  a dollar  and  you  own  a pup,  and  I give  you  a 
dollar  for  your  pup,  how  many  more  dollars  and  how  many 
more  pups  have  we  now?  And  if  we  haven’t  got  any  more 
pups  and  dollars,  how  much  better  off  are  we? 

But  let  us  say  I am  a land  speculator  and  you  are  a far- 
mer. In  1880  I bought  the  above-mentioned  piece  of  dirt  for 
$100.00.  The  rent  has  paid  all  the  taxes  and  8 per  cent  on  the 
money  invested.  For  thirty  years  I have  busied  myself  sitting 
in  the  shade  waiting  for  a sucker.  Then  you  come  along.  Want 
a farm  to  raise  corn,  don’t  you?  and  you  have  $10,000.00, 
which  means  that  I get  $9,900  for  waiting  for  you;  and  you 
raised  18,800  bushels  of  corn  in  the  days  gone  by  and  turned 
the  money  over  to  me.  I,  the  land  speculator,  got  the  savings 
of  your  life  time  and  you  got  a piece  of  land  which  was  here  a 
couple  of  millions  of  years  before  land  speculators  ever  were 
| invented.  Therefore  I say  again,  high  land  values  are  of  no 
more  benefit  to  the  farmer  than  high-priced  farm  implements 
1 are  to  him,  for  the  actual  farmer  wants  land  and  implements 
for  use  and  not  for'  speculation. 

EFFECT  OF  INHERITANCE. 

Now  let  us  put  the  case  differently.  Tom,  the  owner  of 
the  aforementioned  Kansas  farm  lives  on  it  until  he  dies.  Of 


20 


amounts  to  $360.00  per  vear  at  « na!  * f * The  lnteres 
a <nn  non  nn  f P y at  6 per  Cent  interst.  Taxes  oi 

oTj~’ and  next  - th- 

— - rz 

Z2 117212:  TLTelT  'ZtT  r stock  of 

t.on  of  the  land-owning  farmers  into  renters  transforma- 

Landlordism  is  rapidly  increasing  in  the  United  state* 
r6  DnCle  Sam  haSn’‘  any  m°re  *** to  spend,  and  the  b 
sTavervTIt?  Tu\' ^ n°thing  asai»st  ‘he  clm'ng 

making  h!  ‘ 7 en°Ugh  t0  teU  usof  the  Progress  we  are 

making.  Here  are  a few  census  figures: 


Farms  Operated  by 


1880:  .... 

Owners. 
Per  cent. 

Tenants. 
Per  cent. 

1890  

25.5 

1900 

28.4 

1910 

35.3 

38.0 

21 

Farm s Mortgaged . 

30.0  per  cent 

33.3  per  cent 

The  complete  census  figures  on  farm  homes  for  the  census 
year  of  1910  are  not  available  as  yet.  But  they  are  complete 
for  some  states.  Among  them  is  Wisconsin.  This  state  boasts 
of  a large  German  population,  known  for  its  thrift  and  fru- 
gality. If  this  class  of  farmers  are  losing  their  hold  on  the 
soil  and  are  rapidly  drifting  towards  tenantry,  then  we  may 
safely  assume  that  the  same  transformation  is  taking  place  all 
over  the  country.  As  a matter  of  fact,  tenantry  in  the  South- 
ern States  is  increasing  at  a terrific  rate.  Oklahoma,  for  in- 
stance, which  was  thrown  open  for  settlement  in  1889,  has 
over  92,000  farm  tenants  to-day.  But  let  us  return  to  the 
thrifty,  cornfed  farmer  of  Wisconsin  and  learn  what  is  hap- 
pening to  him. 


THE  MORTGAGED  BADGER  FARMER. 

Brother  farmer,  I want  you  to  sit  down  and  do  some  hard 
figuring.  Over  one-half  of  all  the  farms  of  Wisconsin  are 
mortgaged.  Your  place  may  still  be  unincumbered,  but  since 
the  percentage  of  mortgaged  farms  is  steadily  increasing  you 
may  be  the  next  one  to  put  a plaster  on  your  place. 

No.  mort-  Per  cent 

gaged  farms.  mortgaged  farms. 


1890  55,242  42.9 

1900  65,589  45.8 

1910 72,129  51.1 


According  to  the  foregoing  figures,  the  relative  number 
of  farms  operated  by  their  owners  which  are  mortgaged  has 
increased  quite  regularly  since  1890.  From  1890  to  1910  the 
number  increased  21,887,  or  39.6  per  cent. 

From  the  above  it  may  be  easily  seen  that  as  a class  you 
are  getting  more  and  more  in  debt.  A mortgage  is  anything 
but  a sign  of  prosperity.  But  wait,  the  worst  is  yet  to  come. 

Average  Mortgage  Debt  Per  Farm  Increase. 


1890 $1,001 

1910 2,116  111.3  per  cent 


So  we  see  that  in  twenty  years  the  mortgaged  farms  in- 
creased 39.6  per  cent,  while  the  mortgaged  indebtedness  in- 
creased 111.8  per  cent.  Or,  to  put  it  differently,  in  1890  the 
farmers  of  Wisconsin  paid  interest  on  a debt  of  $55,305,000. 
In  1910  they  paid  interest  on  $146,815,000. 

All  this  looks  bad  for  the  Wisconsin  farmers,  and  the  cen- 
sus man,  not  wishing  to  cast  a gloom  over  the  prosperity- 


22 


blessed  Badger  State,  produced  another  array  of  figures,  which 
show  that  while  the  farmers  are  getting  in  debt  more  and  more 
they  are  becoming  richer  at  the  same  time. 

The  wealth  of  the  farmer,  we  are  told,  is  accumulating  in 
the  form  of  land  values.  The  census  states  that  while 
the  mortgaged  indebtedness  increased  111.8  per  cent  land 
values  increased  105.0  per  cent  in  twenty  years.  But  what  the 
census  man  fails  to  prove  is  that  the  increase  of  land  values  is  a 
benefit  to  the  farmer  who  farms  the  farm. 


The  Fetish  of  Land  Values. 


The  average  value  of  land  and  buildings,  per  acre,  was: 


1850. 
1860. 
1870. 
1880. 
1890. 
1900. 
1910  . 


$ 9.58 
16.61 
20.51 
23.30 
28.44 
34.54 
57.06 


That’s  going  some.  “Getting  richer  all  the  time,”  you  say. 


Now  let  me  ask  you  a few  questions. 


If  an  acre  of  land,  valued  at  $9.58  in  1850,  produced  50 
bushels  of  corn,  how  many  bushels  will  it  produce  in  1910, 


when  its  value  has  gone  up  to  $57.06? 


If  an  acre  of  land  worth  $16.61  in^  1870  pastured  two 
cows,  how  many  cows  will  the  same  acre  pasture  in  1910  after 
its  value  has  reached  $57.06  ? 

The  result  of  your  meditation  and  calculation  will  be 
that  while  land  values  have  increased,  the  productivity  of  the 
land  has  remained  almost  the  same.  And  if  with  the  same 
expenditure  of  labor  you  cannot  get  a bigger  crop  on  a fifty 
dollar  acre  than  you  got  on  the  same  acre  when  it  cost  only 
ten  dollars,  how  on  earth  is  the  rise  of  land  values  benefitting 
the  actual  tiller  of  the  soil-  Does  the  farmer  draw  interest  on 
the  value  of  his  land  ? 

When  figuring  your  yearly  income  do  you  state 
Value  of  land,  $10,000.  6 per  cent  interest  on  same.  . $600 


Value  of  crop  $800 


Total  income  $1400 

Or  do  you  put  it  this  way — 

Value  of  crop  $800 

Taxes  on  $10,000  farm  70 


Net  income 


$730. 


■ 


When  you  look  at  it  in  the  right  light  you  will  find  that 
land  values  are  a liability  instead  of  an  asset  to  the  farmer 
who  farms  the  farm.  Rising  land  values  may  increase  your 
taxes,  but  they  don’t  increase  the  product  of  the  land. 


Tenant  Farming. 

The  landlord  robs  the  tenant  and  the  tenant  robs  the 
(soil.  The  result  is  an  impoverished  rural  population  and  an 
impoverished  soil.  Landlordism  is  a curse,  whether  we  find 
it  in  India,  Ireland  or  Wisconsin.  It  produces  miserable  farm 
! homes,  overworked  women,  and  underschooled  children. 
Schools,  churches  and  homes  go  down  in  the  country  and  a 
jj  non-producing,  non-progressing  parasite  class  composed  of 
'tired  and  retired  farmers  hang  around  the  county  seat  towns 
like  flies  around  the  bungholes  of  molasses  barrels. 

Landlordism  is  a survival  of  Lordism  or  Feudalism.  The 
landlord  is  a parasite  without  an  extenuating  circumstance. 
I in  the  scheme  of  life  he  fulfills  no  useful  function.  He  is  to 
agriculture  what  the  mistletoe  is  to  the  tree.  The  rent  money 
3 that  flows  from  the  farm  to  the  towns  is  a fearful  drain  on 
1 the  actual  tillers  of  the  soil.  He  finds  himself  short  of  the 
i capital  required  for  the  purchase  of  the  best  farm  animals  and 
implements.  Every  improvement  made  in  soil  culture  or  by 
1 more  scientific  management  is  absorbed  by  the  landlord  in 


ever  rising  rent. 

The  division  of  the  farming  class  into  landlords  and 
landtillers,  exploiter  and  exploited,  produces  the  same  effect 
noticed  in  the  separation  of  ownership  and  labor  in  modern 
industrial  life.  The  tenant  as  his  brother  the  wage  worker 
will  retain  from  the  product  of  his  toil  only  sufficient  to  keep 
himself  in  working  condition.  The  surplus  above  the  existence 
wage  is  confiscated  by  the  landlord  even  as  the  capitalist  con- 
fiscates the  surplus  value  produced  by  the  wage  worker. 

Tenantry  did  not  increase  at  the  fearful  rate  as  mort- 
gaged indebtedness  did  in  Wisconsin.  But  it  does  increase 
faster  than  the  new  farms  cut  out  of  the  jungle  have  increased. 

On  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that  the  higher  the  land 
values,  the  denser  the  population  and  the  older  the  settlement 
the  greater  is  the  number  of  tenants.  The  greatest  Percentage 
of  tenants  is  found  in  the  southern  counties  of  the  state. 
Tenantry  gradually  disappears  as  we  move  north  toward  the 
sparsely  settled  jungle.  From  this  it  may  be  deducted  that 
if  tenantry  rises  with  age  and  land  values,  the  northern  part 
of  Wisconsin  will  produce  a lusty  crop  of  renters  as  soon  as 
the  land  has  reached  a state  of  cultivation  where  it  will  sup- 
port two  men — landlord' and  renter.  Up  to  the  present  time 


24 


the  cheap  land  , of  the  state  has  proven  the  only  hindrance  to 
the  extension  of  landlordism.  With  the  disappearance  of 
free  or  cheap  land,  tenantry  is  bound  to  grow  rapidly  in  the 
state,  says  the  census  man. 

Farm  Tenure  — 1880-1910. 

The  following  table  shows  the  status  of  farm  tenure  by  1 
decades  since  1880. 

Farms  operated  by  tenants: 


Per  Cent 

1880  12,159  or  9.1 

1890  16,728  or  11.4 

1900  22,996  or  13.5 

1910  24,659  or  13.9 

Farms  operated  by  owners: 

1880 122,163 

1890 129,681 

1900 146,799 

1910 152,473 


In  thirty  years  the  number  of  tenants  doubled  in  the 
state.  Tenantry  increased  102.8  per  cent,  while  the  farms 


operated  by  their  owners  only  increased  24.8  per  cent.  The 
latter  increase  is  almost  exclusively  due  to  the  reclamation 
of  cut  over  land  by  the  pioneer  farmers. 


The  Sunny  South. 

From  damp  and  cold  Wisconsin  let  us  turn  towards  the 
sunny  South  and  see  how  much  sunshine  we  find  for  the 
Southern  farmer  in  the  census  report  of  1910.  Complete 
figures  for  the  South  Central  division  comprising  the  states  of 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Arkansas,  Loui- 
siana, Oklahoma  and  Texas  are  now  available.  The  figures 
show — 

Mortgaged  farms  operated  by  their  owners: 


1900 138,856  or  17  per  cent 

1910 246,048  or  26  per  cent 

Farms  operated  by  tenants: 

1900 805,546  or  49  per  cent 

1910  1,024,265  or  52  per  cent 


To  be  sure,  land  values  rose  133  per  cent  during  the  same 
period  but  it  remains  to  be  proven  whether  or  not  rising  land 
values  benefit  the  farmer  who  farms  the  farm. 

As  a glaring  example  of  the  blessing  (?)  of  rising  land 
values  we  may  point  to  the  conditions  in  Oklahoma.  In  that 
state  land  values  increased  333  per  cent  from  19.00  to  1910. 
At  the  same  time  the  number  of  farm  tenants  rose  from  47,250 
to  103,753. 


25 


In  1900,  92  per  cent  of  the  farms  operated  by  their 
owners  were  owned  free  of  indebtedness.  Ten  years  later  and 
after  an  increase  of  333  per  cent  in  the  value  of  land  only  5 8 
per  cent  of  the  same  farms  remained  unmortgaged. 

The  New  Feudalism. 

The  same  economic  forces  which  have  separated  the 
mechanic  from  the  ownership  of  his  tools  are  even  now  robbing 
the  farmer  of  the  ownership  of  the  soil. 

The  privately  owned  farm  gives  to  the  operating  owner 
the  product  of  his  toil,  but  when  the  farm  passes  into  the 
hands  of  a non-farming  landlord,  it  becomes  a means  of  de- 
priving the  farmer  of  the  product  of  his  labor. 

Owned  by  the  farmer,  the  soil  is  a means  of  production. 
Owned  by  the  landlord  it  is  a means  of  exploitation.  In  agri- 
culture we  find  the  same  transformation  from  private  to  capi- 
talist owned  property  as  observed^  in  industry. 

But  let  us  ask  the  question,  is  this  transformation  in  the 
direction  of  social  production,  and  consequently  towards  social 
ownership?  Are  the  capitalists  buying  up  the  soil  to  repeat 
in  agriculture  the  same  magnificent  process  witnessed  in  the 
development  of  capitalist  production?  How  long  will  it  be 
before  we  ^ee  the  farmer  reduced  to  a wage  worker,  toiling 
on  gigantic  farms  under  the  direction  of  hired  managers, 
scientists  and  soil  experts  for  the  benefit  of  absentee  stock- 
holders? 

To  all  these  questions  there  can  be  but  one  answer,  and 
that  is  the  evolution  in  agriculture  is  not  towards  social  pro- 
duction and  capitalist  ownership.  Instead  of  striving  forward 
towards  capitalism,  we  are  really  returning  toward  feudalism. 

The  farmers  are  losing  the  land  to  the  capitalists.  The 
separation  between  ownership  and  labor  is  taking  place,  but 
the  farmer  is  not  entering  a higher  stage  of  production  as  a 
wage  worker,  but  is  cast  into  a lower  one — tenantry. 

If  the  Census  figures  prove  anything  then  it  is  that  there 
is  no -tendency  towards  bonanza  farming  in  this  country.  The 
size  of  the  average  farm  is  remaining  practically  stationary, 
and  the  number  of  capitalist  farms  operated  by  managers  is 
actually  decreasing. 

Average  number  of  acres  per  farm. 


Year  Number  of  acres  per  farm 

1850 202 

1860 199 

1870 153 

1880 133 

1890 136 

1900 146 

1910 138 


- * 


Farms  operated  by  managers: 

1900 59,085 

1910  57,398 

Decrease  1,687 

The  whole  movement  is  reactionary,  away  from  progress 
toward  feudalism.  Here  we  have  much  land  owned  by  one 
landlord  and  tilled  by  many  tenant  families. 

Not  let  us  separate  the  syllable  Land,  from  Lord,  retaining 
Lord  alone;  let  us  substitute  serf  for  tenant,  and  we  have  in 
name  what  we  have  in  reality — Feudalism. 

Under  feudalism  the  Lord  took  about  one-third  of  the 
product  of  the  serf.  The  modern  landlord,  thanks  to  the  intro- 
duction of  farm  machinery,  takes  one-half  of  the  crop  produced 
by  the  tenant;  and  yet  there  are  people  who  regard  Landlord- 
ism as  an  improvement  on  plain  Lord-ism. 

While  the  county  seat  usurers,  bankers  and  small  fry 
capitalists  are  gleefully  returning  to  the  good  old  days  when 
“Knighthood  Was  In  Flower,”  the  real  capitalists  have  taken 
up  a stragetic  position  and  placed  themselves  in  possession  of 
the  faucet  through  which  the  agricultural  products  flow  into 
the  world’s  markets. 

Grain  elevators,  flour  mills,  cotton  gins,  packing  plants, 
canning  factories  and  market  facilities  are  all  the  property 
of  the  greater  capitalists.  The  possession  of  these  means  of 
production  and  distribution  makes  it  possible  for  this  class  to 
take  from  the  farmer  all  he  produces,  leaving  only  sufficient  to 
allow  him  to  reproduce  his  labor  power  and  raise  a new  genera- 
tion of  farmers. 

The  farmer  selling  into  and  buying  out  of  a monopolized 
market,  finds  himself  in  the  identical  position  of  the’  wage 
worker  who  sells  his  labor  power  under  free  competition  with 
his  fellow  workers  to  the  owners  of  capital.  The  only  difference 
is  that  the  wage  worker  sells  his  labor  power  direct  to  the 
capitalist  while  the  farmer  converts  his  labor  power  into  pro- 
ducts which  he  cannot  turn  into  cash  without  first  passing 
through  the  fingers  of  the  gentlemen  who  cluster  around  the 
faucet. 

The  pay  envelope  of  the  factory  worker  must  contain  the 
price  which  he  must  pay  to  the  landlord  for  the  use  of  a town 
lot,  and  the  price  of  farm  produce  must  be  high  enough  to 
allow  the  farmer  a sum  large  enough  to  pay  land  rent  and 
sustain  life. 

In  both  cases  the  landlord  appears  as  a pure  parasite  on 
industrial  capitalist.  The  abolition  of  landlordism  in  the  cities 
would  undoubtedly  result  in  an  immediate  benefit  to  the  work- 


27 


ing  class,  but  in  the  long  run  this  benefit  would  be  benevolent- 
ly assimilated  by  the  industrial  capitalists.  The  same  is  true 
in  regard  to  landlordism  in  the  farming  regions.  But  it  is 
! further  true  that  wherever  the  workers  have  succeeded  in 
raising  their  standard  of  living  they  will  resist  bitterly  being 
| reduced  to  the  former  standard.  This  undoubtedly  would  in- 
tensify the  class  struggle  and  ultimately  result  in  a stronger 
and  more  militant  working  class. 

The  Socialists  cpuld  not  and  would  not  hinder  the  develop- 
ment of  the  trust. 

The  Socialists  could  not  and  would  not  hinder  the  develop- 
ment of  capitalist  farming.  But  if  there  is  a tendency  toward 
bonanza  farming  in  this  country  it  has  escaped  the  most  care- 
ful observers. 

Two  things  are  absolutely  clear.  The  ratio  of  farm  owners 
I tilling  their  own  soil  is  decreasing  all  over  the  United  States. 

' The  amount  of  land  cultivated  by  the  individual  farmer 
is  becoming  less. 

The  machinery  required  for  the  marketing  of  farm 
! products  is  in  the  hands  of  the ‘capitalists.  Nowhere  do  we 
find  the  remotest  sign  of  capitalist  farming:  So  far  not  even 

j the  partnership,  the  lowest  form  of  capitalist  association,  has 
• developed  on  the  farm. 

In  seeking  a solution  of  the  agricultural  problem,  we  must 
cease  to  wander  about  in  the  realm  of  speculation,  hunting 
cures  for  the  ills  of  phantoms  created  by  ourselves.  We  must 
get  down  to  actual  facts. 

In  order  that  a farmer  may  farm  he  must  have: 

First,  land; 

Second,  tools,  machinery,  animals,  or  in  other  words, 
capital; 

Third,  means  of  bringing  his  product  to  the  ultimate  con- 
sumer without  the  intervention  of  the  capitalist. 

Land. 

The  land  questiop.  may  be  solved  through  a system  of 
taxation  which  would  make  renting  of  land  unprofitable.  By 
forcing  the  owners  of  rented  land  and  idle  land  held  for  the 
rise  of  land  values,  to  pay  a higher  rate  of  taxation  than  is 
paid  by  the  farmer  who  tills  his  own  soil,  the  land  will  natur- 
ally revert  to  the  actual  user  of  the  soil.  This  elimination  of 
the  parasite  landlord  and  speculator  depends  entirely  on  the 
degree  of  taxation.  A tax  that  would  equal  the  full  rental  value 
of  the  land  would  amount  to  the  same  thing  as  confiscation  by 
society. 


Capital. 

The  nationalization  of  the  banking  system,  loaning  money 
at  actual  cost,  would  give  capital  to  the  usury  ridden  farmer 
at  a rate  that  would  be  lower  than  his  greatest  expectations. 

The  national,  state  and  municipal  ownership  of  railroads, 
packing  plants,  canning  factories,  grain  elevators,  cotton  gins, 
market  facilities  and  so  forth,  would  finally  relieve  the  farmer 
from  exploitation  through  the  private  ownership  of  these,  the 
greater  means  of  production  and  distribution. 

The  ultimate  goal  of  Socialism  is  to  give  to  the  worker 
the  product  of  his  labor. 

As  a means  to  this  end  we  demand  the  common  ownership 
of  the  things  that  can  be  used  as  a means  of  exploitation. 

Most  farmers  imagine  that  the  private  o’vvfaership  of  the 
farm  is  the  only  thinkable  arrangement  by  which  they  can 
obtain  the  product  of  their  labor.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
THE  RIGHT  TO  THE  USE  OF  THE  LAND  WILL  INSURE 
THE  PRODUCT  TO  THE  PRODUCER  AS  EFFECTUALLY  AS 
OUTRIGHT  OWNERSHIP. 

We  do  not  have  to  own  a school  house  to  give  education 
to  our  children.  The  common  owned  street  or  county  road 
allows  us  to  move  about  as  freely  as  if  we  had  a title  deed  to 
those  things. 

What  we  do  need  though  is  the  right  to  the  use  of  the 
school,  the  roads  and  the  streets. 

Land  is  not  used  in  common  like  a factory  or  railroad 
and  yet  it  may  be  used  as  a means  o_  exploitation.  A farm 
owned  by  one  man  and  operated  by  another  will  give  to  the 
idle  owner  the  surplus  produced  by  the  tenant  as  effectually  as 
if  the  same  farm  were  operated  by  wage  workers  under  the 
direction  of  a hired  manager. 

Since  land  is  limited,  it  can  become  monopolized  and  the 
ownership  of  many  farms  by  a few  owners  and  filled  indi- 
vidually by  a great  number  of  tenant  families  must  result  in 
the  enslavement  of  the  landless  workers. 

The  Remedy. 

We  have  now  a fair  diagnosis  of  the  case  of  the  farmer. 
He  is  a cruelly  exploited  being.  Parasites  of  all  kinds  and 
descriptions  feed  on  his  body.  Usurers,  landlords,  speculators 
and  capitalists  rob  him  of  the  fruit  of  his  labor.  How  can 
Doctor  Socialist  help  the  farmer? 

In  promulgating  a farmers’  program  the  socialists  have 
the  choice  between  three  policies: 

First,  they  may  prolong  the  life  of  the  small,  isolated  and 
individually  worked  farm  through  land  legislation,  along  the 


29 


lines  laid  down  by  Henry  George  and  through  the  nationaliza- 
tion of  credit.  In  doing  this  the  union  between  ownership  and 
labor  will  be  preserved  in  the  farming  industry.  But  we  are 
also  perpetrating  a system  of  production  which,  although  just 
from  the  viewpoint  of  distribution,  is  undesirable  from  the 
standpoint  of  production. 

Second,  the  Socialists  may  keep  their  hands  off,  allowing 
the  capitalists  to  organize  agriculture  on  a capitalist  basis  or 
to  reduce  the  farmers  to  feudal  serfs. 

Third,  they  may  place  a check  to  the  expropriation  of  the 
farming  class  by  the  capitalists,,  while  at  the  same  time  open 
a way  for  the  development  of  co-operative  farming  and  the 
gradual  nationalization  of  the  land. 

The  Socialist  Party  of  Oklahoma,  composed  almost  ex- 
clusively of  farmers,  has  worked  out  a program  along  these 
latter  lines.  The  program  was  adopted  by  the  overwhelming 
vote  of  actual  farmers  three  years  ago  and  up  to  the  present 
time  has  remained  unamended. 

I do  not  claim  that  it  is  perfect  or  that  other  states 
with  different  conditions  should  adopt  it  without  change,  but 
it  is  a program  that  nearly  every  level  headed  farmer  will 
accept.  It  is  progressive  and  tends  in  the  direction  of  increased 
productivity  and  the  collective  ownership  of  the  means  of  life, 
without  threatening  the  actual  tiller  of  the  soil  with  the  loss 
of  his  land.  I herewith  submit  it  to  the  earnest  consideration 
of  the  farmers  and  Socialists  of  other  states: 

FARMERS’  PROGRAM. 

Art.  1 • 

The  retention  and  constant  enlargement  of  the  public 
domain: 

By  retaining  school  and  other  public  lands. 

By  purchase  of  arid  and  overflow  lands  and  the  state  re- 
clamation of  all  such  lands  now  held  by  the  state  or  that  may 
be  acquired  by  the  state. 

By  the  purchase  of  all  lands  sold  for  the  non-payment  of 
taxes. 

By  the  purchase  of  segregated  and  unallotted  Indian  lands. 

By  the  retention  of  leased  lands  after  the  expiration  of 
leases  and  the  payment  of  the  improvements  thereon  at  an 
appraised  valuation. 

Art.  2. 

Separation  of  the  department  of  agriculture  from  the  poli- 
tical government  by  means  of — 

Election  of  all  members  and  officers  of  the  Board  of  Agri- 
culture by  the  direct  vote  of  the  actual  farmers. 


30 


Introduction  of  the-  merit  system  among  the  employees. 

Art.  3. 

Erection  by  the  state  of  grain  elevators  and  warehouses 
for  the  storage  of  farm  products;  these  elevators  and  ware- 
houses to  be  managed  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture. 

Art.  4. 

Organization  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture  of  free  agricul- 
tural education  and  the  establishment  of  model  farms. 

Art.  5. 

Encouragement  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture  of  co-opera- 
tive societies  of  farmers — 

For  the  buying  of  seed  and  fertilizer. 

For  the  purchase  and  common  use  of  implements  and 
machinery. 

For  the  preparing  and  sale  of  produce. 

For  the  working  of  land  by  groups. 

Art.  6. 

Organization  by  the  state  for  loans  on  mortgages  and  ware- 
house certificates,  the  interest  charges  to  cover  cost  only. 

Art.  7. 

State  insurance  against  diseases  of  animals,  diseases  of 
plants,  insect  pests,  hail,  flood,  storm  and  fire. 

Art.  8. 

Aid  and  encouragement  to  be  given  the  actual  workers  of 
thi  farms  in  the  formation  of  district  co-operative  associations 
which  shall  be  given  the  power  to  issue  bonds  for  the  purchase 
of  suitable  farming  lands — bonds  to  be  redeemable  in  forty 
years.  Individuals  purchasing  such  lands  shall  pay  the  pur- 
chase price  of  land  in  share  or  cash  annual  or  semi-annual 
rentals  extending  over  a period  of  forty  years,  or  may  at  their 
option  pay  in  full  in  any  given  number  of  years. 

Art.  9. 

Exemption  from  taxation  and  execution  of  dwellings,  tools, 
farm  animals,  implements  and  improvements  to  the  amount  of 
one  thousand  dollars. 

Art.  10. 

A graduated  tax  on  the  value  of  rented  land  and  land  held 
ror  speculation. 

Art.  11. 

Absentee  landlords  to  assess  their  own  lands,  the  state 
reserving  the  right  to  purchase  such  land  at  their  assessed 
value  plus  10  per  cent. 

Art.  12. 

Land  now  in  the  possession  of  the  state  or  hereafter  ac- 
quired through  purchase,  reclamation  or  tax  sales  to  be  rented 
to  landless  farmers  under  the  supervision  of  the  Board  of  Agri- 


31 


culture  at  the  prevailing  rate  of  share  rent  or  its  equivalent. 
The  payment  of  such  rent  to  cease  as  soon  as  the  total  amount 
of  rent  paid  is  equal  to  the  value  of  the  land  and  the  tenant 
thereby  acquires  for  himself  and  his  children  the  right  of  occu- 
pancy. The  title  to  all  such  lands  remaining  with  the  common- 
wealth. 

The  Farmers’  Program, 

adopted  by  the  National  Convention  of  the  Socialist  Party  in 
1912: 

1.  The  Socialist  party  demands  that  the  means  of  trans- 
portation and  storage  and  the  plants  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  farm  products  and  farm  machinery  shall  be  socially  owned 
and  democratically  managed. 

2.  To  prevent  the  holding  of  land  out  of  use  and  to 
eliminate  tenantry,  we  demand  that  all  farm  land  not  cultivated 
by  owners  shall  be  taxed  at  its  full  rental  value,  and  that 
actual  use  and  occupancy  shall  be  the  only  title  to  land. 

3.  We  demand  the  retention  by  the  national,  state  or 
local  governing  bodies  of  all  land  owned  by  them,  and  the  con- 
tinuous acquirement  of  other  land  by  reclamation,  purchase, 
condemnation,  taxation  or  otherwise;  such  land  to  be  organized 
as  rapidly  as  possible  into  socially  operated  farms  for  the  con- 
duct of  collective  agricultural  enterprises. 

4.  Such  farms  should  constitute  educational  and  experi- 
mental centers  for  crop  culture,  the  use  of  fertilizers  and  farm 
machinery  and  distributing  points  for  improved  seeds  and 
better  breeds  of  animals. 

5.  The  formation  of  co-operative  associations  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  should  be  encouraged. 

6.  Insurance  against  diseases  of  animals  and  plants, 
insect  pests  and  natural  calamities  should  be  provided  by 
national,  state  or  local  governments. 

7.  We  call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  elimination  of 
farm  tenantry  and  the  development  of  socially  owned  and 
operated  agriculture  will  open  new  opportunities  to  the  agricul- 
tural wage-worker  and  free  him  from  the  tyranny  of  the  private 
employer. 

Conclusion. 

The  Socialist  party  is  the  party  of  the  working  class  of 
which  the  farmer  who  farms  is  an  important  division.  The 
ultimate  goal  of  Socialispi  is  to  insure  to  every  worker  the 
product  of  his  labor.  All  wealth  is  created  by  labor.  This 
being  true,  all  wealth  should  belong  to  its  creator.  The  reason 
why  this  is  not  the  case  at  present  is  because  the  means  of 
production  belong  not  to  the  worker,  but  to  the  capitalist.  To 


32 


give  to  the  worker  the  fruit  of  his  labor  he  must  own  the  means 
of  production,  and  since  the  modern  means  of  production  are 
used  socially  or  in  common,  they  must  be  owned  socially  and 
in  common.  But  mark  well — the  Socialists  do  not  demand  the 
common  ownership  of  all  property.  They  do  not  ask  for  the 
public  ownership  of  private  property.  Only  such  property  as 
is  now  used  by  one  class  to  exploit  another  class  is  to  become 
common  property. 

The  Socialists  do  not  intend  to  take  the  farm  from  the 
farmer  who  farms  the  farm;  but  on  the  contrary  to  see  that  the 
actual  tiller  of  his  soil  may  receive  the  use  of  the  land  without 
paying  tribute  to  landlord  or  land  speculator,  or  any  other 
owner  of  the  tools  of  production,  such  as  railroads,  packing 
houses  mills,  factories  and  mines. 

Neither  are  such  means  of  production  that  are  privately 
used  to  become  public  property. 

The  farmer  may  own  his  own  private  smoke  house,  but 
the  packing  plant  must  belong  to  all.  The  farmer  may  retain 
the  private  ownership  of  his  farm  implements,  but  the  imple- 
ment factory  must  be  commonly  owned.  He  also  may  retain 
as  private  property  anything  and  everything  that  is  not  used 
to  deprive  another  man  of  the  product  of  his  labor.  This  in- 
cludes homes,  automobiles,  carriages,  diamonds,  dogs,  horses, 
cows,  clothing,  pianos,  jewsharps,  muies,  goats,  cats,  churns, 
• cream  separators,  plows,  harrows,  reapers  and  rat  traps.  In 
short  anything  that  is  not  used  to  skin  the  other  fellow. 

Brother  farmer,  the  Socialist  program  points  the  way  to 
deliverance  from  Landlord,  Speculator,  Usurer  and  Parasite. 
Get  into  the  Socialist  party  and  vote  for  your  wife  and  child, 
and  the  full  product  of  your  labor. 

The  End. 


i i 


he  Rip-Saw  Series 

Uniform  with  this  pamphlet— many  different  titles,  32  to 
48  pages,  good  paper,  large  type.  Nothing  better  published. 


Order  by  Number. 

-LAW  AND  THE  WHITE  SLAVER— 


£No. 

No.  2— CHUECH  AND  THE  SOCIAL  PROBLEM— 

By  Kate  Richards  O’Harc — For  minister  or  layman -ff 10c 

To.  3— COMMON  SEN&;  AND  THE  LIQUOR  QUESTION 

By  Kate  Richards  O’Hare— -This  settles  the  “wet”  and  “dry”. . . . 10c 

to.  4— PROSTITUTION  FOR  PROFIT— 

By  H.  G.  Creel — Will  work  a revolution... 10c 

10.  6— TRICKS  OF  THE  PRESS— 

By  EL.  G.  Creel — Tricks  of  newspapers  exposed..*.... 10c 

to.  6— NEWSPAPER  FRAUDS—  * ' 

| By  H.  G.  Creel — Completes  the  story  in  No.  Z 10c 

to.  7— SOCIALISM  AND  FREE  LOVE— 

By  Allen  w.  nicker — You  bare  been  waiting'  for  this... ..10c 

io.  8— A WAVE  OF  HORROR— 

By  Henry  M.  Tlcbenor — From  first  to  last  this  is  great.  .......  ,10c 

To.  9— SOCIALISM  IN  ACTION— 

By  Allen  W.  Ricker— -Kicker’s  great  speech  10c 

io.  10— THE  EVILS  OF  CAPITALISM— 

By  H.  M.  Tlcheaor— Tichenor  tears  the  hide  off 10c 

to.  U— MILITANT  SOCIALISM— 

By  James  Oneal— The  Way  To  Get  It 10c 

to.  12— TriE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY  OF  JESUS— 

By  A.  W.  Ricker — An  Eye  Opener. < . 10c 

(o.  13— WAR!— 

By  Howard  Caldwell— Shows  Why  Men  Fight.. 10c 

i No.  14— RIP-SAW  MOTHER  GOOSE— 

By  H.  M.  Tichenor— Catchy  Jingles. ..  .10c 

to.  15— SOCIAtlSM  FOR  THE  FARMER— 

By  Oscar  Amerlnger — For  Farmers  Who  Farm... 10c 

to.  16— WOMAN  UNDER  CAPITALISM— 

By  H.  M.  TUhenor— Every  Woman  Should  Read  It... 10c 

Bottom  wholesale  prices  of  the  above  booklets.  You  may 
order  all  of  one  kind,  or  mix  them  aa  yon  desire. 

copies,  postpaid. ...... .9  .25  100  copies,  express  prepaid  . .|  5.50 

copies,  postpaid .50  500  copies  In  one  order  (yon 

k copies,  postpaid. ..... . 1.00  pay  the  express  charges; 

copies,  postpaid 3.00  shipping  weight  35  lbs.) . . . 20.00 


SORROWS  OF  cup: 

Eight  years  ago  Kal 
Richards  O’Hare  wrote  a li'. 
tie  64-page  booklet,  WHA 
HAPPENED  TO  BAN  - 
when  the  great-  edition  wa;. 
exhausted  the  book  was  ex- 
panded into  112  pages  and 
called  “The  Sorrows  of  Cu- 
pid”; when  time  would  per- 
mit, Mrs.  O’Hare  eontmueo  . 
the  work  of  enlarging  and  ? 

. • +v>ic  hoont  fill  i 


improving  this  . beautiful 
work  until  now  it  is  a fine 


large  volume  of  many  chap- 
ters. It  covers  the  entire 
case  of  capitalism  from  the 
point  of  most  intense  human  .< 
interest.  Dove, — marriage,— 
tfbme, — babies,  all  the  sweet 
Snd  tender  thoughts  that 
this  gifted  writer  has  ex- 
pressed in  her  many  written 
articles  are  gathered  here; 
a book  that  every  wife  and 
mother,  every  husband  ana. 
father,  every  lover  and  maul- 
ten  should  have  by  them. 
Life  will  be  sweeter  and 
richer  for  you  when  you 
have  read  “The  Sorrows  of 

C“P‘ WORKERS  IN 
AMERICAN  HISTORY.' 


James  Oneal  of  Terre  Haut^In^  spent 
and  research  to  write  a bonk,  ine  the  American  toiling  masses,  ; 

Mexfcan^War.  This  is  a wonder- 

lul  Either  of  these  great  books  will  be  sent  pre-pald  on  receipt  of 
SAMREMEMBIER~iryou  are mol 

you  are  missing  son^Mng  great.  ^r  more,  25  cents  a year.  The 
SO  cents  a year — m clubs  n*  ™u £ \V  ach  cara  good  for  one  years 

Rip-Saw  also  sells  subscription  card^eac^  ^ cftnts  each  You  can 

Vil  ?hSe  6cnards  any  t°ime°to  yoir  friends.  They  are  always  good-for 
3 "BUT  rOOKHERE-YilU  £^1 

JSg  trlfL^ho^easy,  it^toget 


THEY  ALD  WANT  Bo*  this  and 

of  Kat*e ’Rlchards'crHare's’or^neal^^ook  tor  yonr 


library  FREE. 

as  JtJ-O.1  O W VT»  ,'x 

Address:—  THE  NATIONAL  RIP-SAW  ^ L(jrIS>  M0. 

tfty~°prfee^ ’on**  “The^Wo'rketsf^llf  "American  History*  »d 

‘°'u- not 


rive 

kind  os  - 





